Evaluation of alveolar ridge values with autogenous tooth graft and the provocative venture of allogeneic tooth graft from family members

Osama Kashto; Hekmat Yakoob; Munir Harfouch; Ghassan Almohammad

doi:10.12688/f1000research.148842.1

Home Browse Evaluation of alveolar ridge values with autogenous tooth graft and...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Evaluation of alveolar ridge values with autogenous tooth graft and the provocative venture of allogeneic tooth graft from family members

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Osama Kashto ¹, Hekmat Yakoob¹, Munir Harfouch², Ghassan Almohammad²

PUBLISHED 31 Jul 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tishreen University, Latakia, Latakia Governorate, Syria
² Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Damascus University, Damascus, Damascus Governorate, Syria

Osama Kashto
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Hekmat Yakoob
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Munir Harfouch
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ghassan Almohammad
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Abstract

Background

Preserving the structural integrity of the alveolar ridge is paramount in ensuring the success of dental implant procedures and optimizing both aesthetic and physiological outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of autologous dental grafting and explore intriguing results achieved through the utilization of allogeneic dental grafts obtained from a familial participant within the study’s framework.

Methods

Eleven patients necessitating bilateral dental extractions were enrolled in the study. Ten patients underwent autologous dental grafting on one side, while the contralateral side remained untreated. In the eleventh case, one side received autogenous dental grafting, while the other side was augmented with an allogeneic graft sourced from the patient’s son. Outcomes were monitored over a four-month period.

Results

Autogenous dental grafting led to a significant enhancement in bone density values and a reduction in osseous absorption rates(P<0.05) when compared to untreated sites among the ten patients who underwent the procedure. However, notable advancements were observed in patient 11 who received an allogeneic dental graft from a familial donor, suggesting potential superiority over autologous grafting in promoting bone regeneration. These findings underscore the promising prospects of employing allogeneic dental grafts sourced from family members to achieve optimal outcomes in alveolar ridge preservation.

Conclusions

The study underscores the significance of utilizing autologous dental grafts for preserving alveolar ridge dimensions. Importantly, the noteworthy improvement observed in patient outcomes resulting from the use of allogeneic dental grafts compared to autologous grafts raises several inquiries, particularly concerning the potential relationship between the patient and the donor.

Trial registration

The study is registered as a BRAZILIAN CLINICAL TEST RECORD (ReBEC): U1111-1305-2793 on 28-05-2024 ( https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-65qchvs).

Keywords

Autogenous, Allogeneic, Bone density, Alveolar ridge, Bone loss

Corresponding author: Osama Kashto

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Kashto O et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Kashto O, Yakoob H, Harfouch M and Almohammad G. Evaluation of alveolar ridge values with autogenous tooth graft and the provocative venture of allogeneic tooth graft from family members [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2024, 13:854 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148842.1) First published: 31 Jul 2024, 13:854 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148842.1) Latest published: 31 Jul 2024, 13:854 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148842.1)

Introduction

Following tooth loss, the alveolar ridge experiences varying degrees of resorption due to bone remodeling. Surgical extraction trauma disrupts the periosteum-bone connection, triggering vascular damage and acute inflammation, ultimately leading to bone resorption. These changes over time can result in aesthetic and functional deficiencies, complicating or even precluding dental implantation without additional surgical interventions to augment the ridge. Post-extraction ridge preservation procedures aim to minimize resorption, achieve optimal soft and hard tissue conditions for implantation, and ensure ideal aesthetic contours for restorations, thus supporting removable appliances.¹

In this study, we investigate the efficacy of autogenous tooth grafts in preserving alveolar ridge dimensions post-extraction without the need for supplementary surgical procedures or imposing financial burdens on patients. Additionally, we explore the use of allogeneic tooth transplantation, particularly when the donor is a consanguineous relative of the recipient. Our evaluation encompasses both vertical and horizontal dimensions of the alveolar bone, as well as radial bone density, utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as the preferred evaluation modality.²

The rationale for maintaining alveolar ridge integrity includes preserving the soft and hard tissues within the ridge, optimizing its quality and quantity for facilitating dental implantation and preventing adverse changes in tissue profiles that could compromise aesthetics or impede subsequent treatments.³ Various techniques for alveolar ridge preservation have been proposed in the medical literature. Immediate implantation, while mentioned, fails to prevent post-extraction dimensional changes,⁴ and spontaneous healing leads to dimensional alterations.⁵^,⁶

Among these techniques, the use of barrier membranes has shown promise, demonstrating reduced alveolar bone resorption even without additional bone grafts.⁷ Studies on biosorbable membranes have indicated favorable outcomes, including minimal vertical loss and reduced horizontal resorption of the alveolar ridge.⁸ Similarly, bone grafting techniques and substitutes have been widely employed, though they only mitigate, rather than entirely prevent, post-extraction shrinkage.⁹^–¹³

Tissue engineering techniques, leveraging bioactive agents such as growth factors, platelet-rich fibrin, platelet-rich plasma, and bone proteins, have emerged as promising avenues to enhance tissue regenerative capacity.²^,¹⁴^–¹⁶ However, their relatively high cost remains a notable consideration.¹⁷

With advancements in cellular and molecular biology, dental bone grafts derived from extracted teeth have gained attention. These grafts, rich in organic and inorganic components akin to human bone, have demonstrated osteogenic stimulation and guidance properties.¹⁸^–²⁰ The inherent osteogenic healing capacity of autogenous teeth makes them viable substitutes for bone grafts in alveolar bone defects.²¹^,²² Moreover, the physical, chemical, and morphological similarities between dental and human bone components ensure excellent bioremodeling rates with clinical safety.²³^,²⁴

Autogenous tooth grafts present a compelling alternative for alveolar ridge reconstruction, offering favorable clinical outcomes without inherent graft-related complications such as sepsis.²⁵ Conversely, research on the efficacy of allogeneic tooth grafts, particularly from closely related donors, remains limited,²⁶^–²⁸ a gap we aim to address in this study.

Research sample

A purposive sampling method was employed to select ten patients who met the criteria for bilateral tooth extraction. Among these patients, one side served as the control group, undergoing no further intervention, while the contralateral side received an autogenous dental graft, constituting the experimental group. Additionally, an eleventh patient underwent a similar procedure, with one side filled with an autogenous dental graft and the other side augmented with an allogeneic dental graft obtained from the patient’s son. It is noteworthy that the patient’s son consented to the procedure after undergoing appropriate medical assessments to confirm their health status, coinciding with the father’s extraction appointment. All patients included in the study were non-smokers and abstained from alcohol consumption. Moreover, post-extraction examination revealed intact alveolar walls without any signs of inflammation. The study protocol received written approval, and all scheduled follow-up appointments were diligently attended, with follow-up assessments conducted over a period of four months. Table 1 provides an overview of the demographic characteristics of the research sample.

Table 1. The characteristics of the research sample.

10 patients	Sex(n)	M	6(60.0%)
		F	4(40.0%)
	Age (mean±Sd)	36.4±5.9
Eleventh patient	Sex	M
	Age	41

Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted utilizing R-4.4.1 software. The normal distribution of the data was verified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which indicated that all datasets adhered to a normal distribution (P > 0.05). Subsequently, the independent sample t-test was employed for further analysis.

Materials

The preparation of the autogenous tooth graft in vitro necessitated the utilization of the following items:

1. Plastic canisters for the preservation of the extracted tooth, along with filter papers, distilled water, and a standard solution of hydrochloric acid.
2. Solutions comprising chloroform, methanol, and 70% alcohol.
3. Surgical instruments including a handpiece, turbine, burs, surgical blade, sterilization pouches, bone grinder, and metal mortar.

Moreover, alongside anesthetic and extraction tools, Figure 1 depicts an image of the tooth grinder.

Figure 1. The tooth grinder.

Methods

Study design

In this section, we delineate the protocol for preparing a tooth graft, the surgical procedure, and the radiographic examination. It is pertinent to note that our methodology adheres to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.²⁹ This clinical trial is registered with the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC) under the registration number RBR-65qchvs, Date: 28-05-2024. Detailed information regarding the clinical trial registration, including interventions, inclusion, and exclusion criteria, will be presented. The study in question was part of a larger, ongoing research initiative.

Initially, we aimed to gather preliminary data to better understand the scope and feasibility of the study before officially registering the trial. This preliminary phase was crucial to ensure that we were designing the study in the most effective way possible, taking into account any unforeseen challenges or necessary adjustments.

Initially, my research focused on autologous tooth-derived graft material in post-extraction dental socket preservation. While this study might have seemed repetitive, the occurrence of an allogeneic situation during the study had a significant impact on its publication and registration. On one hand, I obtained approval from the University Research Council and registered the study there. I wouldn’t have considered publishing the study if it weren’t for the presence of the allogeneic situation, which made the study a novel topic. The allogeneic case encouraged me to register and publish the study.

Study type interventional

Interventions

This is a two-arm, Single-blind, randomized controlled clinical study. In the experimental group, 11 patients requiring bilateral dental extractions were enrolled. Ten patients received autologous grafting on one side while leaving the other side untreated, and in the case of patient 11, one side received autogenous grafting while the other side was augmented with an allogeneic graft. Outcomes were monitored over a period of 4 months.

Inclusion criteria

Patients of both genders; Individuals aged 18 to 64 years; non-smokers; non-alcoholics; medically fit patients (no previous medical conditions such as heart, diabetes, hypertension, etc.); with indication of extraction of symmetrical teeth; integrity of dental sockets after extraction; patients who signed Informed Consent and attended follow-up sessions

Exclusion criteria

Smokers; alcoholics; patients with infections in the gums or alveoli.

Preparation of the tooth graft

Following tooth extraction, meticulous care was taken to remove all soft tissues adhering to the tooth surface and any potential contaminants. In cases where molars exhibited decay, thorough excavation was performed, ensuring complete removal of carious lesions and any restorative materials present, including layers of enamel. Subsequently, the crown was meticulously separated from the root to facilitate grinding using a manual bone mill. The tooth specimen was then immersed in a plastic canister containing 70% alcohol and rinsed with distilled water prior to the grinding process. Subsequent to grinding, the resultant graft granules underwent immersion in a chloric acid solution for twenty minutes, followed by thorough rinsing with distilled water to eliminate any residual acid traces. Finally, the granules were filtered using filter paper to achieve a clean, purified tooth graft product.

Surgical procedure

Prior to the operation, the patient receives a single dose of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid (1g) along with preoperative gargling using chlorhexidine or povidone. Local anesthesia is administered to the tooth slated for extraction. Subsequently, the periodontal ligament surrounding the tooth is incised, and straight elevators are employed to ensure gentle loosening, thereby facilitating a non-traumatic extraction. The tooth is then carefully removed using forceps, concomitant with the elevation of a full-thickness flap and contouring of the periosteum.

In the control group (comprising 10 patients), the wound is left to heal spontaneously post-extraction. Conversely, in the experimental group (also 10 patients), periosteum contouring is conducted at the base of the socket, aiming to extend it towards the lingual gum while preserving the alveolar bone, aligning with the research goal of alveolar preservation. As the socket chip develops to a suitable size for graft coverage, blood is drawn from the patient and combined with the autogenous graft material in a sterilized metal container. This mixture is then utilized to fill the socket adequately.

Following the complete filling of the socket with the autogenous graft material, the flap is sutured using Prolene 3-0 threads to ensure wound closure and facilitate healing. Post-surgery, the patient receives a prescription along with appropriate instructions for aftercare.

In the case of the eleventh patient, the procedure performed in the experimental group is replicated on one side of the extraction, while the other side is treated similarly but with allogeneic dental grafts. Figure 2 illustrates one of the 10 clinical cases, while Figure 3 depicts the eleventh clinical case.

Figure 2. One of ten cases: one side with autogenous graft, the other without, plus radiographs.

Figure 3. The eleventh case: one side with autogenous graft, the other with allogeneic graft, plus radiographs.

Radiographic assessment

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is employed to conduct radiographic evaluations for both study groups comprising all 11 patients, both pre-extraction and four months post-surgery. The assessments include:

• Measurement of changes in alveolar height by determining the difference from the apex of the alveolar bone to its base across three regions: the vestibular, middle, and lingual aspects of the alveolus. Subsequently, the vertical distance between the alveolar ridge summit and a reference line is measured, comparing it to the control side, and recorded in the patient’s records.
• Evaluation of bone density changes within the extracted tooth socket radiographically, achieved by obtaining a sagittal section through its midpoint. The arithmetic mean of bone density across all points is then calculated using Hounsfield Units, providing insight into variations in bone density over time.

Results

Figure 4 illustrates the values of bone loss in both the vestibular and lingual plates, the vestibular-lingual dimension, and bone density on both sides across ten patients. Table 2 presents the outcomes of the independent sample t-test, comparing mean bone loss in the vestibular-lingual/palatal plate and dimension, along with bone density. Statistically significant disparities were observed in mean bone loss of the vestibular plate between the two sides (P<0.05). Notably, the mean bone loss in the vestibular plate on the control side surpassed that on the application side by approximately 375%, or roughly fourfold. Similarly, this trend extended to the lingual/palatal plate, where the mean loss on the opposing side was higher (P<0.05) than on the autogenous graft application side, registering a percentage increase of approximately 286.75%, or around threefold. Moreover, in the lingual vestibular dimension, the mean loss on the opposing side also exceeded (P<0.05) that on the autogenous graft application side, showing an increase of approximately 194.49%, or nearly twofold. Finally, mean bone density was significantly higher (P<0.05) with autogenous graft application compared to without, exhibiting an increase of approximately 82.91%.

Figure 4. Bone loss, dimension, and density values in vestibular and lingual plates across ten patients.

Table 2. Comparison of results in the 10 patient group.

Measure	Autogenous graft mean ± SE	Control mean ± SE	Mean diff	t.test
Bone loss in the vestibular plate	$0.60 \pm 0.22$	$2.85 \pm 0.23$	2.25	7.09
Bone loss in the lingual/palatal plate	$0.83 \pm 0.31$	$3.21 \pm 0.19$	2.38	6.52
Bone loss in the vestibular-lingual dimension	$1.27 \pm 0.22$	$3.74 \pm 0.32$	2.47	6.33
Bone density	$581.04 \pm 88.44$	$1062.80 \pm 64.51$	481.76	4.40

In the case of the eleventh patient, intriguing findings emerged, with bone loss in the vestibular plate, lingual plate, and vestibular-lingual dimension on the autogenous dental graft side surpassing those on the allogeneic tooth graft side by 80%, 84.62%, and 78.08%, respectively. Conversely, bone density on the allogeneic dental graft side was 20.35% higher than on the autogenous dental graft side. Detailed results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Results in the eleventh patient.

Measure	Autogenous graft	Allogeneic graft
Bone loss in the vestibular plate	0.90	0.50
Bone loss in the lingual/palatal plate	1.20	0.65
Bone loss in the vestibular-lingual dimension	1.30	0.73
Bone density	1127.3	1356.7

Discussion

This study delves into the effects of autogenous tooth grafts on the preservation of alveolar dimensions and the mitigation of subsequent absorption, coupled with the augmentation of bone density. A cohort of 11 patients, totaling 22 teeth, underwent examination utilizing the partial mouth methodology. In this approach, each patient functioned as both the experimental and control group, facilitating direct intra-individual comparisons. Additionally, the influence of allogeneic tooth grafting on these parameters was assessed in a single patient, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of both autogenous and allogeneic grafting techniques.

Discussion on autogenous tooth graft results

Evaluating changes in vestibular plate bone dimensions

The discussion regarding the outcomes of autogenous tooth grafts in altering bone dimensions within the vestibular plate revealed noteworthy findings. Specifically, a significant variance in mean bone loss within the vestibular plate was observed, with the contralateral side experiencing four times greater loss compared to the side treated with autogenous tooth grafts. This discovery aligns closely with the findings of del Canto-Díaz et al. (2019),³⁰ whose study also advocated for vestibular plate preservation through the utilization of autogenous grafts post-extraction. Similarly, the results of Horowitz et al. (2012)³¹ support our findings, emphasizing the beneficial impact of autogenous grafts. Furthermore, Han et al. (2021)¹⁶ emphasized the advantages of grafting, noting increased alveolar ridge dimensions, which further corroborates the efficacy of autogenous grafts.

Moreover, our study revealed a mean osseous absorption rate of 0.60 mm, contrasting with the 0.82 mm reported by Pan et al. (2019).³² These findings underscore the effectiveness of autogenous grafts in mitigating osseous absorption. Similarly, Lai et al. (2020)³³ demonstrated that Xenografts also contribute to reducing post-extraction absorption rates, thereby echoing the results of our study.

Conversely, the research conducted by Kumar et al. (2021),³⁴ utilizing a TCB synthetic graft, found no significant differences in vestibular plate absorption. This variance in outcomes could potentially be attributed to variations in graft types used.

In summary, our study, complemented by prior research, highlights the importance of autogenous grafts in preserving the vestibular plate, reducing osseous absorption, and facilitating post-extraction healing processes.

Assessing changes in lingual/palatal plate bone dimensions

Our study elucidates significant statistical disparities in mean alveolar bone loss between the group receiving autogenous dental grafts and the control cohort. Notably, the control group exhibited approximately threefold greater mean alveolar bone loss, underscoring the efficacy of autogenous tooth grafts in mitigating bone resorption. This observation closely parallels the findings of del Canto-Díaz et al. (2019), who noted a twofold reduction in alveolar bone resorption following autogenous tooth graft application on the vestibular-lingual plate.³⁰

Additionally, our results align with Vignoletti et al.’s research (2012),³⁵ which documented vertical alveolar absorption ranging from 0.3 to 3.75 mm and horizontal absorption spanning from 0.16 to 4.5 mm within the experimental group. These findings underscore the extent of bone absorption possible without alveolar preservation techniques. In contrast, Morjaria et al. (2014) observed vertical alveolar absorption on the palate ranging from 0.51 to 1.17 mm in the control group and 0.02 to 1 mm in the experimental group.¹² These outcomes indicate that techniques such as autogenous tooth grafting significantly reduce bone absorption compared to controls, albeit not entirely eliminating it. Our study reinforces this concept, consistent with Pan et al.’s findings (2019), where lingual/palatal plate bone absorption reached 1.07 mm in their study, compared to 0.83 mm in ours.³² These results imply that while autogenous tooth grafts contribute to preserving the alveolar ridge’s height and width in the lingual and palatal plates, some degree of bone absorption persists.

Finally, our study’s outcomes corroborate Han et al.’s investigation (2021)¹⁶ regarding the role of autogenous tooth grafts in preserving alveolar ridge dimensions in the lingual/palatal plate. Together, these findings validate the effectiveness of autogenous tooth grafts in reducing alveolar bone loss and maintaining the integrity of the alveolar ridge.

Examining changes in vestibular-lingual dimension of bon

The outcomes of our study unveiled noteworthy discrepancies in average bone loss between the site of autogenous tooth graft application and its counterpart on the opposing side, particularly evident in the lingual-palatal dimension. Notably, bone loss on the non-grafted side was approximately twice as pronounced as that observed on the grafted side, a finding consistent with previous investigations conducted by Morjaria et al. (2014)¹² and Joshi et al. (2016).³⁶ Echoing the observations of del Canto-Díaz et al. (2019),³⁰ our results underscore a significant reduction in osseous loss on the grafted side compared to the control group, specifically within the lingual-palatal dimension. Likewise, our findings align with the conclusions drawn by Han et al. (2021)¹⁶ and Joshi et al. (2016),³⁶ supporting the notion of diminished bone loss in regions subjected to grafting procedures. Additionally, Horváth et al. (2013)³⁷ have demonstrated that while measures can be taken to mitigate bone absorption, achieving complete prevention may prove elusive.

Analysis of bone density changes

Our investigation unveiled a striking 82.91% elevation in bone density at the autogenous tooth graft site compared to its counterpart, aligning closely with the observations of del Canto-Díaz et al. (2019).³⁰ Furthermore, our findings echo the work of Jun et al. (2014)²⁶ and Zhang (2022),³⁸ demonstrating comparable bone density levels in regions treated with autogenous tooth grafts, thus accentuating its regenerative prowess. The research conducted by Minetti et al. (2020)³⁹ further corroborates our results, affirming the graft’s capacity to foster viable bone growth.

Moreover, our study resonates with the conclusions drawn by Castro et al. (2021)⁴⁰ and Taşdemir et al. (2020),⁴¹ highlighting the efficacy of autogenous tooth grafts in preserving alveolar structure and promoting enhanced bone formation. Collectively, these investigations underscore the affirmative impact of autogenous tooth grafting on bone regeneration.

In summary, our study, in harmony with existing literature, firmly establishes the superiority of autogenous tooth grafts in terms of bone density enhancement, regenerative potential, and alveolar preservation. This reiterates the significant role of autogenous tooth grafting in the domain of oral, facial, and maxillofacial surgery.

Discussion on allogeneic tooth graft results: Exploring findings and implications

Contrary to our initial expectations, the results of allogeneic grafting diverged from previous findings, which typically favored autografting. The researcher postulates that one significant factor contributing to this outcome is the close kinship between the donor and the recipient, coupled with the age of the donor, who was 17 years old at the time of the surgery. This finding aligns with the notion that instead of discarding extracted human teeth as biomedical waste, a common practice, they can be harvested from suitable, systemically healthy donors. Through processing in a tissue bank, these teeth can be transformed into allografts, offering a compelling alternative to conventional allografts.²⁸ Furthermore, we posit that utilizing teeth from relatives of the patient may further enhance the efficacy of such grafts.

Future directions: Pathways for further research and development

This study reaffirms the significance of employing autogenous tooth grafts for preserving alveolar ridge dimensions, as highlighted in the introduction. It underscores the necessity for comparative investigations against other grafting modalities discussed earlier. Moreover, the intriguing discovery concerning allogeneic grafts prompts consideration for broader studies involving larger cohorts to yield more comprehensive insights. However, it is acknowledged that recruiting donors with familial ties to patients poses inherent challenges, albeit imperative for advancing research in this domain.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the effectiveness of autogenous tooth grafts in preserving alveolar ridge dimensions and reducing bone absorption post-extraction. These findings emphasize their crucial role in enhancing dental implant success and aesthetic outcomes.

Additionally, our investigation into allogeneic tooth grafting, particularly from familial donors, suggests a promising alternative for alveolar ridge preservation.

In conclusion, autogenous tooth grafts stand out as a cornerstone in oral surgery, with potential implications for future grafting techniques.

Ethics and consent

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were by the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (Board Name: Scientific Research Board – Tishreen University, approval number 1127, date 3/3/2021). Compliance with the principles outlined in the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent revisions was strictly observed throughout the study. Additionally, prior to their involvement in the research, all participants provided written consent, affirming their voluntary participation and understanding of the study’s objectives and procedures.

Data availability

Underlying data

Name of the repository: Figshare.

Project title: Evaluation of alveolar ridge values. Link: https://figshare.com/projects/Evaluation_of_alveolar_ridge_values-_F1000/212216

This project contains the following underlying data:

• results.xlsx: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25251616.v1
• Image cases: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26195390.v2
• Materials: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26195276.v1

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

The reporting of this randomized controlled trial to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines. The checklist was followed to ensure all critical elements such as trial design, participant flow, interventions, outcomes, and statistical methods are comprehensively covered. Detailed statistics and adherence to the guidelines are included throughout the manuscript.

• Consort diagram: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26195132.v1
• Consort-2010-checklist: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26195591.v1
• Consent form: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26195129.v1

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

1. Hupp JR: Professionalism in Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020 May; 78(5): 671–672. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Resnik R: Misch’s Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 4th ed.Mosby; 2020; 1264.
3. Jamjoom A, Cohen RE: Grafts for Ridge Preservation. J. Funct. Biomater. 2015 Aug 7; 6(3): 833–848. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Araújo MG, Sukekava F, Wennström JL, et al.: Tissue modeling following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2006 Dec; 17(6): 615–624. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, et al.: A prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial to evaluate bone preservation using implants with different geometry placed into extraction sockets in the maxilla. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan; 21(1): 13–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J: Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2004 Oct; 31(10): 820–828. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Trombelli L, Severi M, Farina R, et al.: Sub-Periosteal Peri-Implant Augmented Layer Technique to Treat Peri-Implantitis Lesions. Clin. Adv. Periodontics. 2020 Dec; 10(4): 169–174. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Duan DH, Wang EB, Zhang Y, et al.: Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Severely Damaged Molar Socket Using a Polylactic Acid Membrane Without Primary Wound Closure: A Case Series. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2021 Nov-Dec; 36(6): 1224–1234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Araújo M, Linder E, Lindhe J: Effect of a xenograft on early bone formation in extraction sockets: an experimental study in dog. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009 Jan; 20(1): 1–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Araújo M, Linder E, Wennström J, et al.: The influence of Bio-Oss Collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008 Apr; 28(2): 123–135. PubMed Abstract
11. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, et al.: Hard tissue alterations after socket preservation: an experimental study in the beagle dog. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2008 Nov; 19(11): 1111–1118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Morjaria KR, Wilson R, Palmer RM: Bone healing after tooth extraction with or without an intervention: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2014 Feb; 16(1): 1–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Willenbacher M, Al-Nawas B, Berres M, et al.: The Effects of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016 Dec; 18(6): 1248–1268. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Miron RJ, Moraschini V, Fujioka-Kobayashi M, et al.: Use of platelet-rich fibrin for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021 May; 25(5): 2461–2478. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Nisar N, Nilesh K, Parkar MI, et al.: Extraction socket preservation using a collagen plug combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP): A comparative clinico-radiographic study. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospects. 2020 Spring; 14(2): 139–145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Han JJ, Chang AR, Ahn J, et al.: Efficacy and safety of rhBMP/β-TCP in alveolar ridge preservation: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, investigator-blinded clinical trial. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021 Dec 20; 43(1): 42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Trombelli L, Farina R, Silva CO, et al.: Plaque-induced gingivitis: Case definition and diagnostic considerations. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018 Jun; 45(Suppl): 20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Jeong HJ, Lee JK: Effectiveness of autogenous tooth bone used as a graft material for regeneration of bone in miniature pig. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011. Publisher Full Text
19. Kim JY, Kim KW, Um IW, et al.: Bone Healing Capacity of Demineralized Dentin Matrix Materials in a Mini-pig Cranium Defect. J. Korean Dent. Sci. 2012 Jun 30; 5(1): 21–28. Publisher Full Text
20. Murata M, Akazawa T, Mitsugi M, et al.: Human Dentin as Novel Biomaterial for Bone Regeneration.Pignatello R, editor. Biomaterials - Physics and Chemistry. InTech; 2011; pp. 127–140.
21. Kim YK, Choi YH: Tooth autotransplantation with autogenous tooth-bone graft: A case report. J. Korean Dent. Sci. 2011; 4(2): 79–84. Publisher Full Text
22. Nampo T, Watahiki J, Enomoto A, et al.: A new method for alveolar bone repair using extracted teeth for the graft material. J. Periodontol. 2010 Sep; 81(9): 1264–1272. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Kim YK, Kim SG, Oh JS, et al.: Analysis of the inorganic component of autogenous tooth bone graft material. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2011; 11(8): 7442–7445.
24. Kim YK, Lee J, Um IW, et al.: Tooth-derived bone graft material. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013 Jun; 39(3): 103–11. Epub 2013 Jun 25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Kim YK, Um IW: Vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous tooth bone graft materials: A case report. J. Korean Assoc. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011; 33(2): 166–170.
26. Lee JY, Kim YK, Yi YJ, et al.: Clinical evaluation of ridge augmentation using autogenous tooth bone graft material: Case series study. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013 Aug; 39(4): 156–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Hernández-Monjaraz B, Santiago-Osorio E, Ledesma-Martínez E, et al.: Retrieval of a periodontally compromised tooth by allogeneic grafting of mesenchymal stem cells from dental pulp: A case report. J. Int. Med. Res. 2018 Jul; 46(7): 2983–2993. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Joshi CP, D’Lima CB, Samat UC, et al.: Comparative alveolar ridge preservation using allogenous tooth graft versus free-dried bone allograft: A randomized, controlled, prospective, clinical pilot study. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2017 Apr-Jun; 8(2): 211–217. Erratum in: Contemp Clin Dent. 2017 Jul-Sep;8(3):509. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al.: CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23; 340. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Del Canto-Díaz A, de Elío-Oliveros J , Del Canto-Díaz M, et al.: Use of autologous tooth-derived graft material in the post-extraction dental socket: Pilot study. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2019 Jan 1; 24(1). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Horowitz R, Holtzclaw D, Rosen PS: A review on alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2012 Sep; 12(3 Suppl): 149–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Pan J, Xu Q, Hou J, et al.: Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on alveolar ridge preservation: A systematic review. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2019 Sep; 150(9): 766–778. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Lai VJ, Michalek JE, Liu Q, et al.; Ridge preservation following tooth extraction using bovine xenograft compared with porcine xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Periodontol. 2020 Mar; 91(3): 361–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Kumar K, Singh R, Mugal V, et al.: Preservation of Alveolar Ridge using Graft Material after Tooth Extraction: A Clinical Trial. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2021 Jun; 13(Suppl 1). JPBS_603_20. Epub 2021 Jun 5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
35. Vignoletti F, Matesanz P, Rodrigo D, et al.: Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb; 23 Suppl 5: 22–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Joshi CP, Dani NH, Khedkar SU: Alveolar ridge preservation using autogenous tooth graft versus beta-tricalcium phosphate alloplast: A randomized, controlled, prospective, clinical pilot study. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 2016 Jul-Aug; 20(4): 429–434. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Horváth A, Mardas N, Mezzomo LA, et al.: Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013 Mar; 17(2): 341–363. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Zhang S, Zhang X, Li Y, et al.: Clinical Reference Strategy for the Selection of Treatment Materials for Maxillofacial Bone Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2022 Jun; 19(3): 437–450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Minetti E, Giacometti E, Gambardella U, et al.: Alveolar Socket Preservation with Different Autologous Graft Materials: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter Pilot Study in Human. Materials (Basel). 2020 Mar 5; 13(5): 1153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
40. Castro AB, Van Dessel J, Temmerman A, et al.: Effect of different platelet-rich fibrin matrices for ridge preservation in multiple tooth extractions: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2021 Jul; 48(7): 984–995. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Taşdemir U, Kirtay M, Keleş A, et al.: Autogenous Tooth Bone Graft and Simvastatin Combination Effect on Bone Healing. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020 Nov/Dec; 31(8): 2350–2354. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 31 Jul 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tishreen University, Latakia, Latakia Governorate, Syria
² Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Damascus University, Damascus, Damascus Governorate, Syria

Osama Kashto
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Hekmat Yakoob
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Munir Harfouch
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ghassan Almohammad
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 31 Jul 2024, 13:854

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148842.1

Copyright

© 2024 Kashto O et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Kashto O, Yakoob H, Harfouch M and Almohammad G. Evaluation of alveolar ridge values with autogenous tooth graft and the provocative venture of allogeneic tooth graft from family members [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2024, 13:854 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148842.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 31 Jul 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

[1] 1. Hupp JR: Professionalism in Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020 May; 78(5): 671–672. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Resnik R: Misch’s Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 4th ed.Mosby; 2020; 1264.

[3] 3. Jamjoom A, Cohen RE: Grafts for Ridge Preservation. J. Funct. Biomater. 2015 Aug 7; 6(3): 833–848. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Araújo MG, Sukekava F, Wennström JL, et al.: Tissue modeling following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2006 Dec; 17(6): 615–624. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, et al.: A prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial to evaluate bone preservation using implants with different geometry placed into extraction sockets in the maxilla. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan; 21(1): 13–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J: Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2004 Oct; 31(10): 820–828. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Trombelli L, Severi M, Farina R, et al.: Sub-Periosteal Peri-Implant Augmented Layer Technique to Treat Peri-Implantitis Lesions. Clin. Adv. Periodontics. 2020 Dec; 10(4): 169–174. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Duan DH, Wang EB, Zhang Y, et al.: Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Severely Damaged Molar Socket Using a Polylactic Acid Membrane Without Primary Wound Closure: A Case Series. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2021 Nov-Dec; 36(6): 1224–1234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Araújo M, Linder E, Lindhe J: Effect of a xenograft on early bone formation in extraction sockets: an experimental study in dog. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009 Jan; 20(1): 1–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Araújo M, Linder E, Wennström J, et al.: The influence of Bio-Oss Collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008 Apr; 28(2): 123–135. PubMed Abstract

[11] 11. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, et al.: Hard tissue alterations after socket preservation: an experimental study in the beagle dog. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2008 Nov; 19(11): 1111–1118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Morjaria KR, Wilson R, Palmer RM: Bone healing after tooth extraction with or without an intervention: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2014 Feb; 16(1): 1–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Willenbacher M, Al-Nawas B, Berres M, et al.: The Effects of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016 Dec; 18(6): 1248–1268. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Miron RJ, Moraschini V, Fujioka-Kobayashi M, et al.: Use of platelet-rich fibrin for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021 May; 25(5): 2461–2478. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Nisar N, Nilesh K, Parkar MI, et al.: Extraction socket preservation using a collagen plug combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP): A comparative clinico-radiographic study. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospects. 2020 Spring; 14(2): 139–145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Han JJ, Chang AR, Ahn J, et al.: Efficacy and safety of rhBMP/β-TCP in alveolar ridge preservation: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, investigator-blinded clinical trial. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021 Dec 20; 43(1): 42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Trombelli L, Farina R, Silva CO, et al.: Plaque-induced gingivitis: Case definition and diagnostic considerations. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018 Jun; 45(Suppl): 20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Jeong HJ, Lee JK: Effectiveness of autogenous tooth bone used as a graft material for regeneration of bone in miniature pig. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Kim JY, Kim KW, Um IW, et al.: Bone Healing Capacity of Demineralized Dentin Matrix Materials in a Mini-pig Cranium Defect. J. Korean Dent. Sci. 2012 Jun 30; 5(1): 21–28. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Murata M, Akazawa T, Mitsugi M, et al.: Human Dentin as Novel Biomaterial for Bone Regeneration.Pignatello R, editor. Biomaterials - Physics and Chemistry. InTech; 2011; pp. 127–140.

[21] 21. Kim YK, Choi YH: Tooth autotransplantation with autogenous tooth-bone graft: A case report. J. Korean Dent. Sci. 2011; 4(2): 79–84. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Nampo T, Watahiki J, Enomoto A, et al.: A new method for alveolar bone repair using extracted teeth for the graft material. J. Periodontol. 2010 Sep; 81(9): 1264–1272. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Kim YK, Kim SG, Oh JS, et al.: Analysis of the inorganic component of autogenous tooth bone graft material. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2011; 11(8): 7442–7445.

[24] 24. Kim YK, Lee J, Um IW, et al.: Tooth-derived bone graft material. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013 Jun; 39(3): 103–11. Epub 2013 Jun 25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Kim YK, Um IW: Vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous tooth bone graft materials: A case report. J. Korean Assoc. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011; 33(2): 166–170.

[26] 26. Lee JY, Kim YK, Yi YJ, et al.: Clinical evaluation of ridge augmentation using autogenous tooth bone graft material: Case series study. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013 Aug; 39(4): 156–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Hernández-Monjaraz B, Santiago-Osorio E, Ledesma-Martínez E, et al.: Retrieval of a periodontally compromised tooth by allogeneic grafting of mesenchymal stem cells from dental pulp: A case report. J. Int. Med. Res. 2018 Jul; 46(7): 2983–2993. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Joshi CP, D’Lima CB, Samat UC, et al.: Comparative alveolar ridge preservation using allogenous tooth graft versus free-dried bone allograft: A randomized, controlled, prospective, clinical pilot study. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2017 Apr-Jun; 8(2): 211–217. Erratum in: Contemp Clin Dent. 2017 Jul-Sep;8(3):509. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al.: CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23; 340. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Del Canto-Díaz A, de Elío-Oliveros J , Del Canto-Díaz M, et al.: Use of autologous tooth-derived graft material in the post-extraction dental socket: Pilot study. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2019 Jan 1; 24(1). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Horowitz R, Holtzclaw D, Rosen PS: A review on alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2012 Sep; 12(3 Suppl): 149–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Pan J, Xu Q, Hou J, et al.: Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on alveolar ridge preservation: A systematic review. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2019 Sep; 150(9): 766–778. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Lai VJ, Michalek JE, Liu Q, et al.; Ridge preservation following tooth extraction using bovine xenograft compared with porcine xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Periodontol. 2020 Mar; 91(3): 361–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Kumar K, Singh R, Mugal V, et al.: Preservation of Alveolar Ridge using Graft Material after Tooth Extraction: A Clinical Trial. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2021 Jun; 13(Suppl 1). JPBS_603_20. Epub 2021 Jun 5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[35] 35. Vignoletti F, Matesanz P, Rodrigo D, et al.: Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb; 23 Suppl 5: 22–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Joshi CP, Dani NH, Khedkar SU: Alveolar ridge preservation using autogenous tooth graft versus beta-tricalcium phosphate alloplast: A randomized, controlled, prospective, clinical pilot study. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 2016 Jul-Aug; 20(4): 429–434. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Horváth A, Mardas N, Mezzomo LA, et al.: Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013 Mar; 17(2): 341–363. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Zhang S, Zhang X, Li Y, et al.: Clinical Reference Strategy for the Selection of Treatment Materials for Maxillofacial Bone Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2022 Jun; 19(3): 437–450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Minetti E, Giacometti E, Gambardella U, et al.: Alveolar Socket Preservation with Different Autologous Graft Materials: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter Pilot Study in Human. Materials (Basel). 2020 Mar 5; 13(5): 1153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[40] 40. Castro AB, Van Dessel J, Temmerman A, et al.: Effect of different platelet-rich fibrin matrices for ridge preservation in multiple tooth extractions: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2021 Jul; 48(7): 984–995. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Taşdemir U, Kirtay M, Keleş A, et al.: Autogenous Tooth Bone Graft and Simvastatin Combination Effect on Bone Healing. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020 Nov/Dec; 31(8): 2350–2354. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Evaluation of alveolar ridge values with autogenous tooth graft and the provocative venture of allogeneic tooth graft from family members

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Keywords

Introduction

Research sample

Table 1. The characteristics of the research sample.

Data analysis

Materials

Figure 1. The tooth grinder.

Methods

Study design

Study type interventional

Interventions

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Preparation of the tooth graft

Surgical procedure

Figure 2. One of ten cases: one side with autogenous graft, the other without, plus radiographs.

Figure 3. The eleventh case: one side with autogenous graft, the other with allogeneic graft, plus radiographs.

Radiographic assessment

Results

Figure 4. Bone loss, dimension, and density values in vestibular and lingual plates across ten patients.

Table 2. Comparison of results in the 10 patient group.

Table 3. Results in the eleventh patient.

Discussion

Discussion on autogenous tooth graft results

Analysis of bone density changes

Discussion on allogeneic tooth graft results: Exploring findings and implications

Future directions: Pathways for further research and development

Conclusion

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated